Read a draft

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only that a 'summary' is returned and that XML is opt-in, without disclosing what the summary contains or what happens for a missing/invalid draftId.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the title. It is efficient, though its brevity is the source of the completeness gaps noted elsewhere rather than a stylistic flaw.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is only minimally sufficient. It omits what fields the 'summary' includes, what the XML represents, and error behavior for an unknown draftId, which an agent would want before invoking it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden for both parameters. 'Optionally with the full XML' does explain the intent of includeXml, but draftId is left entirely undocumented and the description adds no format, ID-source, or default details for either parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Returns a stored draft's summary,' with the optional XML payload named. It is distinguishable from the invoice siblings by the word 'draft,' but it never explicitly contrasts itself with sef_get_invoice or sef_list_invoice_ids, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to call this or sef_get_invoice, or under what circumstances a draft should be fetched rather than an invoice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.